A. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to methods and apparatus for data input, and, more particularly, to a method and apparatus for integrating manual input.
B. Description of the Related Art
Many methods for manual input of data and commands to computers are in use today, but each is most efficient and easy to use for particular types of data input. For example, drawing tablets with pens or pucks excel at drafting, sketching, and quick command gestures. Handwriting with a stylus is convenient for filling out forms which require signatures, special symbols, or small amounts of text, but handwriting is slow compared to typing and voice input for long documents. Mice, finger-sticks and touchpads excel at cursor pointing and graphical object manipulations such as drag and drop. Rollers, thumbwheels and trackballs excel at panning and scrolling. The diversity of tasks that many computer users encounter in a single day call for all of these techniques, but few users will pay for a multitude of input devices, and the separate devices are often incompatible in a usability and an ergonomic sense. For instance, drawing tablets are a must for graphics professionals, but switching between drawing and typing is inconvenient because the pen must be put down or held awkwardly between the fingers while typing. Thus, there is a long-felt need in the art for a manual input device which is cheap yet offers convenient integration of common manual input techniques.
Speech recognition is an exciting new technology which promises to relieve some of the input burden on user hands. However, voice is not appropriate for inputting all types of data either. Currently, voice input is best-suited for dictation of long text documents. Until natural language recognition matures sufficiently that very high level voice commands can be understood by the computer, voice will have little advantage over keyboard hot-keys and mouse menus for command and control. Furthermore, precise pointing, drawing, and manipulation of graphical objects is difficult with voice commands, no matter how well speech is understood. Thus, there will always be a need in the art for multi-function manual input devices which supplement voice input.
A generic manual input device which combines the typing, pointing, scrolling, and handwriting capabilities of the standard input dew ice collection must have ergonomic, economic, and productivity advantages which outweigh the unavoidable sacrifices of abandoning device specialization. The generic device must tightly integrate yet clearly distinguish the different types of input. It should therefore appear modeless to the user in the sense that the user should not need to provide explicit mode switch signals such as buttonpresses, arm relocations, or stylus pickups before switching from one input activity to another. Epidemiological studies suggest that repetition and force multiply in causing repetitive strain injuries. Awkward postures, device activation force, wasted motion, and repetition should be minimized to improve ergonomics. Furthermore, the workload should be spread evenly over all available muscle groups to avoid repetitive strain.
Repetition can be minimized by allocating to several graphical manipulation channels those tasks which require complex mouse pointer motion sequences. Common graphical user interface operations such as finding and manipulating a scroll bar or slider control are much less efficient than specialized finger motions which cause scrolling directly, without the step of repositioning the cursor over an on-screen control. Preferably the graphical manipulation channels should be distributed amongst many finger and hand motion combinations to spread the workload. Touchpads and mice with auxilliary scrolling controls such as the Cirque® Smartcat touchpad with edge scrolling, the IBM® ScrollPoint™ mouse with embedded pointing stick, and the Roller Mouse described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,530,455 to Gillick et al. represent small improvements in this area, but still do not provide enough direct manipulation channels to eliminate many often-used cursor motion sequences. Furthermore, as S. Zhai et al. found in “Dual Stream Input for Pointing and Scrolling,” Proceedings of CHI '97 Extended Abstracts (1997), manipulation of more than two degrees of freedom at a time is very difficult with these devices, preventing simultaneous panning, zooming and rotating.
Another common method for reducing excess motion and repetition is to automatically continue pointing or scrolling movement signals once the user has stopped moving or lifts the finger. Related art methods can be distinguished by the conditions under which such motion continuation is enabled. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,734,685, Watanabe continues image panning when the distance and velocity of pointing device movement exceed thresholds. Automatic panning is stopped by moving the pointing device back in the opposite direction, so stopping requires additional precise movements. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,591 to Gillespie et al., motion continuation occurs when the finger enters an edge border region around a small touchpad. Continued motion speed is fixed and the direction corresponds to the direction from the center of the touchpad to the finger at the edge. Continuation mode ends when the finger leaves the border region or lifts off the pad. Disadvantageously, users sometimes pause at the edge of the pad without intending for cursor motion to continue, and the unexpected motion continuation becomes annoying. U.S. Pat. No. 5,327,161 to Logan et al. describes motion continuation when the finger enters a border area as well, but in an alternative trackball emulation mode, motion continuation can be a function solely of lateral finger velocity and direction at liftoff. Motion continuation decays due to a friction factor or can be stopped by a subsequent touchdown on the surface. Disadvantageously, touch velocity at liftoff is not a reliable indicator of the user's desire for motion continuation since when approaching a large target on a display at high speeds the user may not stop the pointer completely before liftoff. Thus it would be an advance in the art to provide a motion continuation method which does not become activated unexpectedly when the user really intended to stop pointer movement at a target but happens to be on a border or happens to be moving at significant speed during liftoff.
Many attempts have been made to embed pointing devices in a keyboard so the hands don't have to leave typing position to access the pointing device. These include the integrated pointing key described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,189,403 to Franz et al., the integrated pointing stick disclosed by J. Rutledge and T. Selker in “Force-to-Motion Functions for Pointing,” Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT '90, pp. 701-06 (1990), and the position sensing keys described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,361 to Santilli. Nevertheless, the limited movement range and resolution of these devices leads to poorer pointing speed and accuracy than a mouse, and they add mechanical complexity to keyboard construction. Thus there exists a need in the art for pointing methods with higher resolution, larger movement range, and more degrees of freedom yet which are easily accessible from typing hand positions.
Touch screens and touchpads often distinguish pointing motions from emulated button clicks or keypresses by assuming very little lateral fingertip motion will occur during taps on the touch surface which are intended as clicks. Inherent in these methods is the assumption that tapping will usually be straight down from the suspended finger position, minimizing those components of finger motion tangential to the surface. This is a valid assumption if the surface is not finely divided into distinct key areas or if the user does a slow, “hunt and peck” visual search for each key before striking. For example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,543,591 to Gillespie et al., a touchpad sends all lateral motions to the host computer as cursor movements. However, if the finger is lifted soon enough after touchdown to count as a tap and if the accumulated lateral motions are not excessive, any sent motions are undone and a mouse button click is sent instead. This method only works for mouse commands such as pointing which can safely be undone, not for dragging or other manipulations. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,666,113 to Logan, taps with less than about {fraction (1/16)}″ lateral motion activate keys on a small keypad while lateral motion in excess of {fraction (1/16)}″ activates cursor control mode. In both patents cursor mode is invoked by default when a finger stays on the surface a long time.
However, fast touch typing on a surface divided into a large array of key regions tends to produce more tangential motions along the surface than related art filtering techniques can tolerate. Such an array contains keys in multiple rows and columns which may not be directly under the fingers, so the user must reach with the hand or flex or extend fingers to touch many of the key regions. Quick reaching and extending imparts significant lateral finger motion while the finger is in the air which may still be present when the finger contacts the surface. Glancing taps with as much as ¼″ lateral motion measured at the surface can easily result. Attempting to filter or suppress this much motion would make the cursor seem sluggish and unresponsive. Furthermore, it may be desirable to enter a typematic or automatic key repeat mode instead of pointing mode when the finger is held in one place on the surface. Any lateral shifting by the fingertip during a prolonged finger press would also be picked up as cursor jitter without heavy filtering. Thus, there is a need in the art for a method to distinguish keying from pointing on the same surface via more robust hand configuration cues than lateral motion of a single finger.
An ergonomic typing system should require minimal key tapping force, easily distinguish finger taps from resting hands, and cushion the fingers from the jarring force of surface impact. Mechanical and membrane keyboards rely on the spring force in the keyswitches to prevent activation when the hands are resting on the keys. This causes an irreconcilable tradeoff between the ergonomic desires to reduce the fatigue from key activating force and to relax the full weight of the hands onto the keys during rest periods. Force minimization on touch surfaces is possible with capacitive or active optical sensing, which do not rely on finger pressure, rather than resistive-membrane or surface-acoustic-wave sensing techniques. The related art touch devices discussed below will become confused if a whole hand including its four fingertips, a thumb and possibly palm heels, rests on the surface. Thus, there exists a long felt need in the art for a multi-touch surface typing system based on zero-force capacitive sensing which can tolerate resting hands and a surface cushion.
An ergonomic typing system should also adapt to individual hand sizes, tolerate variations in typing style, and support a range of healthy hand postures. Though many ergonomic keyboards have been proposed, mechanical keyswitches can only be repositioned at great cost. For example, the keyboard with concave keywells described by Hargreaves et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 5,689,253 fits most hands well but also tends to lock the arms in a single position. A touch surface key layout could easily be morphed, translated, or arbitrarily reconfigured as long as the changes didn't confuse the user. However, touch surfaces may not provide as much laterally orienting tactile feedback as the edges of mechanical keyswitches. Thus, there exists a need in the art for a surface typing recognizer which can adapt a key layout to fit individual hand postures and which can sustain typing accuracy if the hands drift due to limited tactile feedback.
Handwriting on smooth touch surfaces using a stylus is well-known in the art, but it typically doesn't integrate well with typing and pointing because the stylus must be put down somewhere or held awkwardly during other input activities. Also, it may be difficult to distinguish the handwriting activity of the stylus from pointing motions of a fingertip. Thus there exists a need in the art for a method to capture coarse handwriting gestures without a stylus and without confusing them with pointing motions.
Many of the input differentiation needs cited above could be met with a touch sensing technology which distinguishes a variety of hand configurations and motions such as sliding finger chords and grips. Many mechanical chord keyboards have been designed to detect simultaneous downward activity from multiple fingers, but they do not detect lateral finger motion over a large range. Related art shows several examples of capacitive touchpads which emulate a mouse or keyboard by tracking a single finger. These typically measure the capacitance of or between elongated wires which are laid out in rows and columns. A thin dielectric is interposed between the row and column layers. Presence of a finger perturbs the self or mutual capacitance for nearby electrodes. Since most of these technologies use projective row and column sensors which integrate on one electrode the proximity of all objects in a particular row or column, they cannot uniquely determine the positions of two or more objects, as discussed in S. Lee, “A Fast Multiple-Touch-Sensitive Input Device,” University of Toronto Masters Thesis (1984). The best they can do is count fingertips which happen to lie in a straight row, and even that will fail if a thumb or palm is introduced in the same column as a fingertip.
In U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,565,658 and 5,305,017, Gerpheide et al. measure the mutual capacitance between row and column electrodes by driving one set of electrodes at some clock frequency and sensing how much of that frequency is coupled onto a second electrode set. Such synchronous measurements are very prone to noise at the driving frequency, so to increase signal-to-noise ratio they form virtual electrodes comprised of multiple rows or multiple columns, instead of a single row and column, and scan through electrode combinations until the various mutual capacitances are nulled or balanced. The coupled signal increases with the product of the rows and columns in each virtual electrode, but the noise only increases with the sum, giving a net gain in signal-to-noise ratio for virtual electrodes consisting of more than two rows and two columns. However, to uniquely distinguish multiple objects, virtual electrode sizes would have to be reduced so the intersection of the row and column virtual electrodes would be no larger than a finger tip, i.e. about two rows and two columns, which will degrade the signal-to-noise ratio. Also, the signal-to-noise ratio drops as row and column lengths increase to cover a large area.
In U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,543,591, 5,543,590, and 5,495,077, Gillespie et al measure the electrode-finger self-capacitance for row and column electrodes independently. Total electrode capacitance is estimated by measuring the electrode voltage change caused by injecting or removing a known amount of charge in a known time. All electrodes can be measured simultaneously if each electrode has its own drive/sense circuit. The centroid calculated from all row and column electrode signals establishes an interpolated vertical and horizontal position for a single object. This method may in general have higher signal-to-noise ratio than synchronous methods, but the signal-to-noise ratio is still degraded as row and column lengths increase. Signal-to-noise ratio is especially important for accurately locating objects which are floating a few millimeters above the pad. Though this method can detect such objects, it tends to report their position as being near the middle of the pad, or simply does not detect floating objects near the edges.
Thus there exists a need in the art for a capacitance-sensing apparatus which does not suffer from poor signal-to-noise ratio and the multiple finger indistinguishability problems of touchpads with long row and column electrodes.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,463,388 to Boie et al. has a capacitive sensing system applicable to either keyboard or mouse input, but does not consider the problem of integrating both types of input simultaneously. Though they mention independent detection of arrayed unit-cell electrodes, their capacitance transduction circuitry appears too complex to be economically reproduced at each electrode. Thus the long lead wires connecting electrodes to remote signal conditioning circuitry can pickup noise and will have significant capacitance compared to the finger-electrode self-capacitance, again limiting signal-to-noise ratio. Also, they do not recognize the importance of independent electrodes for multiple finger tracking, or mention how to track multiple fingers on an independent electrode array.
Lee built an early multi-touch electrode array with 7 mm by 4 mm metal electrodes arranged in 32 rows and 64 columns. The “Fast Multiple-Touch-Sensitive Input Device (FMTSID)” total active area measured 12″ by 16″, with a 0.075 mm Mylar dielectric to insulate fingers from electrodes. Each electrode had one diode connected to a row charging line and a second diode connected to a column discharging line. Electrode capacitance changes were measured singly or in rectangular groups by raising the voltage on one or more row lines, selectively charging the electrodes in those rows, and then timing the discharge of selected columns to ground through a discharge resistor. Lee's design required only two diodes per electrode, but the principal disadvantage of Lee's design is that the column diode reverse bias capacitances allowed interference between electrodes in the same column.
All of the related capacitance sensing art cited above utilize interpolation between electrodes to achieve high pointing resolution with economical electrode density. Both Boie et al. and Gillespie et al. discuss computation of a centroid from all row and column electrode readings. However, for multiple finger detection, centroid calculation must be carefully limited around local maxima to include only one finger at a time. Lee utilizes a bisective search technique to find local maxima and then interpolates only on the eight nearest neighbor electrodes of each local maximum electrode. This may work fine for small fingertips, but thumb and palm contacts may cover more than nine electrodes. Thus there exists a need in the art for improved means to group exactly those electrodes which are covered by each distinguishable hand contact and to compute a centroid from such potentially irregular groups.
To take maximum advantage of multi-touch surface sensing, complex proximity image processing is necessary to track and identify the parts of the hand contacting the surface at any one time. Compared to passive optical images, proximity images provide clear indications of where the body contacts the surface, uncluttered by luminosity variation and extraneous objects in the background. Thus proximity image filtering and segmentation stages can be simpler and more reliable than in computer vision approaches to free-space hand tracking such as S. Ahmad, “A Usable Real-Time 3D Hand Tracker”, Proceedings of the 28th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers—Part 2, vol. 2, IEEE (1994) or Y. Cui and J. Wang, “Hand Segmentation Using Learning-Based Prediction and Verification for Hand Sign Recognition,” Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 88-93 (1996). However, parts of the hand such as intermediate finger joints and the center of the palms do not show up in capacitive proximity images at all if the hand is not flattened on the surface. Without these intermediate linkages between fingertips and palms the overall hand structure can only be guessed at, making hand contact identification very difficult. Hence the optical flow and contour tracking techniques which have been applied to free-space hand sign language recognition as in F. Quek, “Unencumbered Gestural Interaction,” IEEE Multimedia, vol. 3, pp. 36-47 (1996), do not address the special challenges of proximity image tracking.
Synaptics Corp. has successfully fabricated their electrode array on flexible mylar film rather than stiff circuit board. This is suitable for conforming to the contours of special products, but does not provide significant finger cushioning for large surfaces. Even if a cushion was placed under the film, the lack of stretchability in the film, leads, and electrodes would limit the compliance afforded by the compressible material. Boie et al suggests that placing compressible insulators on top of the electrode array cushions finger impact. However, an insulator more than about one millimeter thick would seriously attenuate the measured finger-electrode capacitances. Thus there exists a need in the art for a method to transfer finger capacitance influences through an arbitrarily thick cushion.